How does systemaccounting affect my privacy?

Is everyone going to know what I buy and what I do?

A:

The purpose of systemaccounting is to measure trade for those who contribute to an economy’s existence; not to publicize the minuscule details of their involvement to create markets that shouldn’t exist. For example, if Henry purchased $100.00 worth of groceries from The General Store on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:11:03s PM, the rest of us are not going to automatically know what he bought, where he shopped, or even that he spent $100.00 because Henry has not chosen to supply this information to the market. Despite there being a demand for Henry’s information from advertisers, marketers, and anyone else interested in having access to it, not supplying his information to the market is Henry's way of exercising his right to not include it in the market for information; therefore, this section of the economy should not exist.
There are other markets, however, that do have a right to know that $100.00 in revenue was verifiably earned by The General Store on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:11:03s PM. One such market having this right is known as the market for equity, which is a subsidiary of the market for return (a.k.a. market for risk). If someone shopping in the market for equity is considering an investment in The General Store, they deserve not to be lied to as they form a final opinion about the value of its business. Not being lied to doesn’t mean "knowing everything about Henry", it just means being certain that the $100.00 The General Store earned on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:11:03s PM was because someone else chose to expend that same $100.00 @ The General Store (debit = credit).
Also, if it was proven that Henry walked out with $120.00 worth of groceries, then the fact he only transmitted $100.00 to The General Store is one he is not at liberty to deny the public. Just as it's not rational to commit a crime if one expects to be caught, it's not rational to conceal evidence of one's deeds if others are expected to defend them. When privacy is cited as an exception to accountability, the liability of a failure in judgement is transferred from the offender to the judge whose ruling risks exclusion of the fact, thus giving host to state-enabled crimes. Citing privacy as an exception to accountability also vastly increases its cost due to expensive and unnecessarily-invasive discovery, the indulgence of rumor and intrigue which may further disrupt the affairs of the parties involved, the false admission of hearsay, etc. On the other hand, the person who proves accountable at the outset avoids many of these expenses for themselves and the state in which they are a stakeholder. Lowering the cost of accountability lowers the cost of privacy in a system where quick and efficient discovery phases to prove or disprove claims of liability, and not marketing hypotheses, more easily affords the accountable all the privacy they wish.

Justice is, physically, the property of all: A market in which we all are consumers and producers. As inhabitants in the Land of Intellectual Justice, it is our duty to access this intellectual property to correct an instance where each and every contributor to the economy was not physically rendered their due.

Finally, once members of the public realize that those who have the most to gain from citing privacy as an exception to accountability are those who have the most to profit from a lack of accountability, they will gladly step into the light despite their modest imperfections—if only to await and identify those who refuse.

Was this helpful?